OK, those ideas are fairly easy to implement but require some decisions by the GM in-game. Not an actual mechanical system per se so much as guidelines;

Wizard
They are problematic due to being potentially capable of doing anything and having access to a list of class abilities (their spells), broader and stronger than anyone else. So;
Spell types: Spells are divided in four distinct levels; universal (of no school that everyone can learn), common (the simplest spells for a given level), uncommon (more unusual and powerful for their level than common spells) and rare (spells with highly unusual or very powerful and complex effects for their level). It is up to the GM to what type a spell belongs.
Specialization: Wizards have 8 specialization "points" and start being able to learn all cantrips and universal spells. They must then allocate their specializations to different schools in order to learn additional spells. I.e. a generalist wizard could have 1 specialization in six of the schools and 2 specializations on the seventh, being able to learn all common spells plus uncommon in that school - but no uncommon spells of the six schools and no rare spells at all. A master specialist could have 3 specializations in two schools and 1 specialization in two more, being able to learn all spells of any rarity from those two schools plus common spells from other two - but entirely lack access to four schools of magic and uncommon/rare spells in other two. Wizards can "retrain" 1 specialization per level gained - losing access to a given spell rarity does prevent a wizard from memorizing those spells even if he already has them in his spellbook.
Summary: Basically, either narrow specialization or light dips in every school, balancing the wizard through breaking up the combos.

Sorcerer:
The first spell known for every level must be common or universal. The second spell known must be common, uncommon or universal. No specific schools limitations. (see "wizard" above). Since the sorcerer depends on their spells known and those are very limited, limiting the rarity of over half his spells known would make him balanced.

Psion:
Same as wizard.

Wilder:
Same as sorceror BUT they learn 1 power per class level rather than the "only 11 powers known" crap. Alternatively, don't change them at all.

Cleric:
Just like the wizard, they have too broad abilities. Thus, a cleric must follow one of the following archetypes;
Warpriest: gains access to evocation, necromancy and conjuration
Champion: gains access to transmutation, evocation and abjuration.
Hierophant: gains access to divination, abjuration and conjuration
Prophet: gains access to divination, enchantment and illusion.
Healer: gains access to abjuration, necromancy and conjuration.
Herald: gains access to the school of his choice plus all the domain spells of his deity for his basic slots.
Note: all clerics can channel energy and gain the basic domain slots. Additionally, they gain "Raise Dead" as a 7th level spell and "Ressurection" as a 9th level spell if they don't otherwise have them.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-07-04, 10:13 AM

The biggest issue here is that evaluating every spell you might want in the game as universal, common, uncommon, or rare is pretty much the opposite of "easy to implement."

Also, there doesn't appear to be any benefit to having multiple specializations in the same school.

Quellian-dyrae

2013-07-04, 02:55 PM

Hmm...although...you might be able to assign rarity broadly. For example:

(A spell that fits multiple criteria uses the highest rarity; a spell that fits none of the below criteria is universal)

Spell deals damage of a type other than Fire, Cold, Electricity, Acid, or Physical: Common.

Spell deals at least one die of damage per level, with no cap: Uncommon.

Spell causes a "tier 2" negative effect: Common.
Includes any effect that imposes a 50% or greater chance on failing some actions, prevents the target from taking both its move and standard action, removes a significant tactical option (spellcasting, movement, etc), or imposes a -6 or greater penalty on checks or stats. Examples include Blindness, Unluck, Confusion, Charm, Bestow Curse, etc.

Spell causes a "tier 3" negative effect: Uncommon.
Any effect that functionally removes the target from combat, typically by imposing -10 or greater penalties on checks or stats, making the target unable to take standard actions, rendering the target helpless, or taking control of the target. Examples include Daze, Stun, Paralyze, Suggestion, Domination, Petrification, Instant Death, Frightened, Panic, etc.

Offensive spell that does not allow a saving throw: Increase rarity by +1, to maximum of Rare.
Change to +2 if it also doesn't require a touch attack.

Spell affects multiple targets or affects all creatures in an area: Increase rarity by 1, to maximum of Rare.

Spell has a range greater than Long: Uncommon.

Spell has an area greater than 100' radius, 300' cone, or 600' line: Rare.

Spell has an expensive focus component: Common.

Spell has an expensive material component: Uncommon.

Spell has an XP cost or priceless/unique material component: Rare.

Spell is of the [Calling] subschool: Rare.

Spell is of the [Polymorph] subschool: Rare.

Spell is of the [Teleportation] subschool: Uncommon.

Spell is of the [Scrying] subschool: Common.

Spell causes multiple effects: Common.

Spell can be used to emulate other spells: Rare.

Spell can be used to accomplish tasks normally performed via skills: Uncommon.
Reduce to Common if the character has ranks in the relevant skill equal to half (its HD + 3), or Universal if the character has ranks in the relevant skill equal to (its HD + 3). If its skill ranks go below this amount and its specialization is insufficient for the spell's new rarity, it loses access to the spell.

Spell provides the caster with a minion for longer than one minute per level: Uncommon.
A minion meaning, any creature under the caster's control, such as Dominated, Animated, Summoned, or Called creatures. If there is no functional limit to the number of minions, change to Rare.

Spell permanently or instantaneously creatures or transforms objects: Common.
Change to Uncommon if it can do so for a broad range of objects, or Rare if it has minimal limits; a Wall of Stone or Wood Shape would be Common, a Fabricate Uncommon, and a Polymorph Any Object rare, for example.

Spell is Harmless and has a duration: Common.

Spell is Personal and has a duration: Uncommon.

There's probably a few that I missed, but I think that's most of the big ones.

Just to Browse

2013-07-04, 03:07 PM

Spell schools never have been and never will be the same. Wizards will focus transmutation and still be broken because it gets them fly, animal buffs, haste, and polymorph.

Also what Grod said. This is not a functional idea.

Belial_the_Leveler

2013-07-04, 05:54 PM

Spell more useful/desirable/powerful than many other spells of its level: Rare.
Spell less useful/desirable/powerful than many other spells of its level: common.
Spell of average usefulness/desirability/power: uncommon.
Example Common: Energy Drain, Power Word Kill, Meteor Swarm
Example Uncommon: Wail of the Banshee, Reaving Dispel, Prismatic Sphere, Dominate Monster.
Example Rare: Shapechange, Disjunction, Gate, Time Stop.

Basically, shunt all the "usual suspects" for exploitable into rare, all the weaker than normal or straight damage into common and everything inbetween into uncommon.

As for our transmuter-focused wizard, he only gets to fully specialize in one more school. What does he get first? Illusions to hide and for the shadow spells? Divination to see through illusions and foresee danger? Conjuration to call allies? Evocation for the force spells and contingencies? And which four schools of magic does he get to miss entirely?

Vadskye

2013-07-04, 06:32 PM

It takes a huge amount of work to actually rebalance spell schools to the point where any fix based around the assumption that spell schools are roughly similar will work.

That doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It's actually a fairly good idea; my system uses a similar differentiation between "common" and "uncommon" spells, though the details are different. Just don't think this is a sufficient fix by itself; all this will do on its own is increase the degree to which wizards tend to be transmuters and conjurers.

Belial_the_Leveler

2013-07-05, 04:58 AM

You could cheat on the school balancing work and just steal Pathfinder's spell list and fixes. The schools are surprisingly balanced over at Pathfinder, they fixed the Polymorph/Shapechange issues, and 95% of the core abuses in spells have been removed.

Just to Browse

2013-07-05, 07:14 AM

Pathfinder is just as broken as 3.x, and yes your transmuter does not care about losing evocation, divination, necromancy, and enchantment. He doesn't care, because he has polymorph, fly, and haste.

Vadskye

2013-07-05, 12:14 PM

Pathfinder is just as broken as 3.x, and yes your transmuter does not care about losing evocation, divination, necromancy, and enchantment. He doesn't care, because he has polymorph, fly, and haste.

This. I have seen nothing to suggest that Pathfinder spells are substantially more balanced than 3.5. It addressed the most glaringly obvious abuses (polymorph) and left about 90% of the spells essentially unchanged. The same imbalances still exist.

Belial_the_Leveler

2013-07-05, 02:31 PM

your transmuter does not care about losing evocation, divination, necromancy, and enchantment
Sure he doesn't. But he also no longer invalidates stealth guys, information-gatherers, doesn't get real minions, can't influence social situations and do all the other stuff that directly invalidate any other class.

He also gets a significant drop in his total power due to lack of spell combos and the amount of situations he can deal with in combat drops drastically - he can't see invisible for example.

Basically, he drops from a Tier 1 to a low Tier 2 or high Tier 3.

Vadskye

2013-07-05, 03:06 PM

Sure he doesn't. But he also no longer invalidates stealth guys, information-gatherers, doesn't get real minions, can't influence social situations and do all the other stuff that directly invalidate any other class.

He also gets a significant drop in his total power due to lack of spell combos and the amount of situations he can deal with in combat drops drastically - he can't see invisible for example.

Basically, he drops from a Tier 1 to a low Tier 2 or high Tier 3.
Agreed. Limiting flexibility is very significant. (I was unclear earlier - I was agreeing that Pathfinder didn't balance the schools, not that wizards only need transmutation.)

Carl

2013-07-06, 01:29 AM

Mind if i throw a slightly more complex idea in?

Been writing an all up analysis recently and made some observations about attack roll's, saves, e.t.c. Basic profile stuff.Not remotely ready to start putting together a full-re-write but i'll admit listing and explaining the problems is getting my brain going and a few idea's have popped up weather i want them or not. Figure i might as well share one sine it's relevant and i'm not sure yet weather i'll use it myself, so i might as well give you a toy to play with.

Basic concept: Instead of listing BAB, Saves, e.t.c. on profile the 3 progressions, (full, 3/4 and half, (sans iterative attack values)), are listed in a single table for refferance purposes. hen each class has one of these defined for each of the following:

Martial BAB
Spell-casting BAB
Reflex Save
Fort Save
Will Save

When casting a spell a Spellcasting attack roll is made with the SPellcasting BAB.

Any time current rules would call for a save instead compare the Rolled spell-casting Attack Roll to the Save value. If it equals or beats it the effect is as a failed save, otherwise treat it as a passed save.

Saves also now benefit from Armour and Shield AC bonuses, and ASF is replaced by adding the AC of the armour worn to any saves allowed against a spell cast whilst wearing it.

Obviously some changes would have to be made and the save progression might be a little extreme, but i think you've got the general idea now.

Belial_the_Leveler

2013-07-06, 06:22 AM

Why would a spell affecting the mind be harder to cast on someone with plate armor than one with leather armor? Why would a spell that needs to be dodged be more easily dodged by the guy with full plate than the guy with leather?

And so on and so forth. Mechanics have to make sense, too - this one doesn't.

Xerlith

2013-07-06, 07:51 AM

We HAVE a spellcasting BAB. it's called Caster level (versus SR - the AC).
Or 10+spell level + spellcasting ability modifier versus saves. No need to reinvent the wheel.
If you want to nerf casting, do it more subtly someone here, long time ago, proposed DC's being 10+half caster level - spell level. This way the caster needs to choose whether he wants to cast a spell that has powerful effects, but low chance of affecting the target or fire off something less spectacular, but sure to have SOME effects.

If this doesn't cut it, you may as well use the idea of having bucklers grant + to reflex saves, shields grant Evasion, having tower shield grant Imp. Evasion (and + to reflex saves in both cases. All of the following only if you're proficient).
Or even both.
But really, the way you presented this makes me think that ONLY the spells that grant a reflex save should allow the armor bonus to matter. (or not. This is much more complex than just nerfing casters).

Yakk

2013-07-06, 08:16 AM

Why would a spell affecting the mind be harder to cast on someone with plate armor than one with leather armor? Why would a spell that needs to be dodged be more easily dodged by the guy with full plate than the guy with leather?
Easy: being encased in metal actually makes you somewhat magic resistant, in a pseudo-Faraday cage like way. Or maybe everyone inscribes glyphs into their armor, and the amount of glyphs that work lines up nearly perfectly with the armor types.

If magic is common, and armor doesn't work against magic, we'd see people wearing less armor (like how Civil war soldiers didn't wear much armor).

If we want pseudo-medievalism, we want armor to be worn by soldiers. If we want that and common magic, then armor should protect against magic. Coming up with a justification isn't hard.

Belial_the_Leveler

2013-07-06, 09:58 AM

Then the wizard first uses a quickened Metal Melt spell to get rid of your armor or a damage spell trageted on the armor to destroy it and then hits you with dominate. Or they'd simply rely on indirect effects that wouldn't interact with the new system.

A reactive fix (i.e. a fix that buffs defense against magic) leads to an arms-race and a shift towards more convoluted tactics. We need an active fix - i.e. a fix that limits the brokneness, especially where magic is concermed.

TuggyNE

2013-07-06, 06:30 PM

Easy: being encased in metal actually makes you somewhat magic resistant, in a pseudo-Faraday cage like way. Or maybe everyone inscribes glyphs into their armor, and the amount of glyphs that work lines up nearly perfectly with the armor types.

Wow. That's the most contrived explanation I've heard in quite a while. Now, if you set it up so each armor had a "magic defense bonus" or something, that was not necessarily linked to its armor bonus, I could almost accept it, but just handwaving that hide armor gives you more protection than padded cloth, because of the metal content or something? Yeah, no.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-07-06, 09:22 PM

Wow. That's the most contrived explanation I've heard in quite a while. Now, if you set it up so each armor had a "magic defense bonus" or something, that was not necessarily linked to its armor bonus, I could almost accept it, but just handwaving that hide armor gives you more protection than padded cloth, because of the metal content or something? Yeah, no.
"Metal interferes with magic" is an idea I've heard plenty of times in fiction, and one that meshes well with D&D's idea of ACF. ("What if I got a suit of armor with no gauntlets? Or no arms?") It would perhaps require a bit more groundwork for consistency's sake, but why not? Makes thing a bit more balanced and a bit more flavorful.

Carl

2013-07-06, 11:49 PM

@Belial: And it doesn't make sense that armour already supposed interfere's with magic, (ASF), yet provides no protection vs spells. You can't really have ASF and not have armour affect things. Sure it doesn't quite work out from the PoV of spells like illusions but either system has issues with not being 100% sensible.

To address your second post, this isn't meant as a 100% complete fix, indeed i'm not even sure it's the right answer, i'm throwing an idea out for you to pick holes in. Talking of which i realised because i wrote that so late i missed several important points out.

The real point here is to put both magical and martial attack's on the same level as far as base attack and defence values go as well as, (as much as possible), the same sources of defence and offence for both martial and spellcaster attacks. They're now on the same playing field with the same equal benefits from offensive and defensive modifiers.

@Xerlith: actually it's called the touch attack. Spellcasting works on some radically different methods to martial attacks, the idea here is to bring them into line with each other.

TuggyNE

2013-07-07, 01:54 AM

"Metal interferes with magic" is an idea I've heard plenty of times in fiction, and one that meshes well with D&D's idea of ACF. ("What if I got a suit of armor with no gauntlets? Or no arms?") It would perhaps require a bit more groundwork for consistency's sake, but why not? Makes thing a bit more balanced and a bit more flavorful.

It falls apart given the existence of magic without spell failure: i.e., all arcane spells without somatic components (*coughStillSpellcough*), all divine spells ever, and all psionics, for starters.

No, D&D's ASF has nothing to do with metal mystically interfering with magic and everything to do with weight in odd places throwing off precise gestures.

DoomHat

2013-07-07, 02:37 AM

This thread is one of several thousand, none of which have ever come up with any easy or widely acceptable answers. So I'm just go nuts and offer up things I think are cool.

Wizard Fix: 8 hours of sleep no longer recovers spells slots.
Each spell must be prepared individually. They require a number of hours equal to a given spell's level and a DC10+(Spell level X2) spellcraft check. On a failed check the time and components are wasted.
Once a spell is prepared it fills up its relevant spell slot and remains ready until used.

Sorcerer Fix: The weird supernatural influence that powers the sorcerer's magic also inflicts them with strange and terrible appetites.
-Those who's power comes from draconic blood are complied against all reason to maintain a horde. They can't sleep on anything other then their horde and tend to fly into berserk rages whenever anything is removed from it.
-Those powered by undead influence can only be sustained by the flesh of the still living.
-Even if good, demonic bloodline sorcerers always count as evil for magic effects and must make will saves to resist the urge to laugh at the sight someone's agony.
-So on, and so forth.

Cleric Fix: They don't get to prepare their spells at all. They must pray as a standard action, begging in character for divine intervention, at the moment they need it. They must make a case to their god for why and how that god should interfere.
The gods are free to refuse them entirely or deem a different spell appropriate to the situation, depending on the nature of the god in question, how they view the target of the spell, and how devout the cleric has been recently. Gods like clerics who send ritual sacrifices more then those that don't, by the way!
A cleric's spell slots represent the extent of their god's patience per day, refreshing only at sun rise.

Yakk

2013-07-07, 08:16 AM

Then the wizard first uses a quickened Metal Melt spell to get rid of your armor or a damage spell trageted on the armor to destroy it and then hits you with dominate.
Why would a quickened spell that gives the target's wearer a Will save (ie, the same as the Dominate you are casting) be a good plan again? I guess it gives you two tries to break through the target's defences.

Or they'd simply rely on indirect effects that wouldn't interact with the new system.

A reactive fix (i.e. a fix that buffs defense against magic) leads to an arms-race and a shift towards more convoluted tactics. We need an active fix - i.e. a fix that limits the brokneness, especially where magic is concermed.
The real issue is that Fireball is not the problem, and that kind of buff boosts defence against Fireball more than it does against Solid Fog.